Music Banter - Top 100 Guitarists Of All Time:

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Rock & Metal (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/)

- - Top 100 Guitarists Of All Time: (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/35567-top-100-guitarists-all-time.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 566263)

Have you heard punk rock music as a whole?

Isn't that Syd Barrett in your avatar? Because he was WAY WAY WAAAAAAAAAY sloppier than Page. I mean Jesus Christ, just listen Take Up Thy Stethoscope and Walk, don't bullsh*t me about sloppy guitarists, this is a man you and your cronnies are calling the greatest f*cking genius in music history, and at the same time you want to call one of the most influencial guitarists of all time mediocre because he was sloppy on some performances?

Does any Led Zeppelin fan ever acknowledge Heartbreaker as one of Page's best works? NO.

Don't come back to me until you can play Since I've Been Loving You flawlessly.

I have cronies?
That's me in my avatar
thanks for the compliment....
Since i've been loving you....seriously?
it's blues-rock, nothing hard about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireInCairo (Post 566286)

I have cronies?
That's me in my avatar
thanks for the compliment....
Since i've been loving you....seriously?
it's blues-rock, nothing hard about that.

Most great rock guitarists are blues based.

I didn't say it was hard, but it's not sloppy either, every note does it's job. Heartbreaker is universally agreed upon as Pages worst solo, it dosen't help your argument when you call him a bad guitarist and use that as an example.

One thing you didn't even try to argue is this, he's sloppy and, so what?

So is Hendrix, Townshend and anyone who's ever been in the Rolling Stones (Brian Jones especially), maybe not to the same extent as Page. But rock n roll has never been about precision.

One thing that shouldn't be denied is that Page, when he wanted to be, was a very technically accomplished guitarist, but that was not the reason he became popular, because you have guys like Beck and Blackmore who are undeniably more skilled than Page, what Page had was the tremendous amount of energy and balls, coupled with the talent that he had, that's what everyone looks for in a rock god.

Quote:

* Technical: A player's technical ability. This also included things like recording, producing, building guitars and amps, etc…
* Soul/Emotion: A player's ability to make you feel their music.
* Influence on the Music Industry: A player's impact on the entire industry. This included things like a band's influence on other bands, live performances that led the way for others, marketing, starting your own label, etc…
* Influence on the Guitar Industry: Did the player inspire other guitar players, have there own guitar model, did kids key in on learning their songs from guitar teachers. Signature Amps, etc…
* Signature Sound: How unique was the guitar player. Could you name him in just a couple of seconds based solely on his sound?
* Longevity: How long did they last as a relevant musician. Are they still touring and selling tickets, if dead are their songs still being broadcast each day?

Quote:

70 Robert Johnson

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 566289)

Most great rock guitarists are blues based.

I didn't say it was hard, but it's not sloppy either, every note does it's job. Heartbreaker is universally agreed upon as Pages worst solo, it dosen't help your argument when you call him a bad guitarist and use that as an example.

One thing you didn't even try to argue is this, he's sloppy and, so what?

So is Hendrix, Townshend and anyone who's ever been in the Rolling Stones (Brian Jones especially), maybe not to the same extent as Page.

One thing that shouldn't be denied is that Page, when he wanted to be, was a very technically accomplished guitarist, but that was not the reason he became popular, because you have guys like Beck and Blackmore who are undeniably more skilled than Page, what Page had was the tremendous amount of energy and balls, coupled with the talent that he had, that's what everyone looks for in a rock god.

That's fair.
Did I say bad? I more meant that he does not belong on the top of a list like this as he so often does. It's not that he is bad, more that he is overrated.
Are you of the vintage to have seen them live?
My uncle did in the mid 70's
apparently they were utterly atrocious.

I've seen a fair deal of Zeppelin live, as with any band, they had their good nights and bad ones, Page could be amazing one show and horrible the next.

I guess it depended on how wasted he was.

Zeppelin were best live in their earlier years.

He saw them on their 1972 Australian tour....

72/73 was when they started going downhill live.

Though I think personally, at that same time, they were improving as a studio band, funny how that works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 566259)

Thats a horrible example.

Thats like saying, well Paul McCartney must not be talented or influencial in anyway because you know, he sucks without the other guys.

With any band, chemestry is important, if you think DLR is the only reason Van Halen found success, then you're obviously crazy.

DLR's vocals did give Van Halen a distinct sound though which was lost when they got Sammy. But it goes without saying that what made Van Halen get peoples attention was the way EVH played, in 1978 every rock band had bluesy guitarists that were indistinguishable from another. EVH did something entirely different and thus inspired tons of musicians as a result, and yet, he's unoriginal and had no impact, based of course, on absolutely nothing.

Hilarious.

And no, I don't care about what you think about most of the guitarists he influenced, since I already know, and in fact, I dislike 90% of all the guitarists in the world who owe their existance to Eddie. But it dosen't change the fact that he inspired people, which as a music lover I have to respect.

If I were to go by an objective criteria I'd have to say that EVH is at least in the top 3 great guitarists of all time.

I'm not saying he wasn't one or that Dave was the only factor in their popularity. Personally I think what made Van Halen the success they were was a combination of both. All i'm saying is that it's kind of ironic for the amount of praise EVH gets it was the guy with the least musical talent leaving that was their downfall.

I look at it as Roth being the public face of the band & EVH being the muso face of the band. Once Roth left all of EVH guitar trickery & technique may have appealed to musos & die hard fans but without it being backed up with Roth's charisma it was left lacking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 566377)

I look at it as Roth being the public face of the band & EVH being the muso face of the band. Once Roth left all of EVH guitar trickery & technique may have appealed to musos & die hard fans but without it being backed up with Roth's charisma it was left lacking.

I could see that. Roth may not have had the best voice but he was definitely one hell of a front man. I think even if you don't like Van Halen there's no getting around that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 566377)

Ehh, I think David Lee Roth was talented as a frontman and an entertainer, not a technical singer by any means, but that would be like saying Jagger has no talent as a frontman either.

Michael Anthony is the black sheep of Van Halen, by far.

Quote:

That's true, but that dosen't make him not a great guitarist, a lot of the greatest guitarists are sidemen, not solo guys like Vai or Malmsteen. Do people really care about Page without Plant? May without Mercury? Townshend without Daltry? I don't think so. Chemistry with other musicians is something a great guitarist should have, EVH had that with Roth.